Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

Using Romans 13 as a starting place, Bercot argues Christians should be the most conscientious law-keepers—until a law directly conflicts with Christ’s commands; what picture of God (His authority, order, and moral seriousness) is implied by treating law-obedience as part of discipleship rather than merely a civic strategy?

Another way to ask: If Christians should obey laws unless a law directly goes against Jesus’ commands, what does that say about God’s authority and how serious He is about right and wrong? How does it change the way you think about following laws?

Direct Answer Bercot’s approach implies God is serious about authority and moral order: obeying government law is normally part of obeying Christ, not a pragmatic choice. Yet God’s authority is ultimate, so when a law directly contradicts Jesus’ teaching, the disciple must obey God rather than man and accept consequences without excuses.

Support from Transcript:

He says the “starting place should always be Romans 13,” meaning Christians “obey the laws of the land…even if we don’t like them.”
The only exception is “unless obedience to the law would cause us to directly violate a law or principle of Jesus Christ.”
He states, “Of all people, we should be the ones most conscientiously obeying the laws of Caesar,” up to the point of conflict with Jesus.
He rebukes Christians who break laws for convenience: “this is not a case of secondary persecution…we’re actually violating Christ’s law.”
He insists disobedience must be for a direct conflict: “If we’re going to violate…a law… it needs to be because it is in direct conflict with Christ’s laws.”

Discussion Follow-ups Does your view of God make obedience feel like worship and seriousness—or mainly like a tool to avoid trouble?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10